Friday, August 9, 2013

- On Milton Friedman. I thought this point about Friedman not being important to the history of economic thought was dumb, though - but most of the post is taken up with how unfortunate it is that the right doesn't seem to be paying much attention to him on practical matters.

- So I felt much better when he wrote this follow up post on Friedman that insisted he wasn't Friedman bashing and drove home what I thought was the main point of the first post anyway - that a lot of the right isn't paying attention to him.

- Krugman talking Kalecki. AWESOME. The paper he cites is nice as a political economy/public choice piece. Of course you don't get the full sweep of Kaleckian economics from that but it's easily his best known contribution among mainstream economists.

Recently Pete Boettke promoted Hazlitt as a public intellectual and mocked the idea that Krugman was. On the former claim, I'm willing to hear arguments. As I've said what little I've read of Hazlitt doesn't speak well of him... but then again I'm the first to admit I've only read a little. It's not just that I disagree with him. There are lots of nice public intellectuals that I disagree with. It's that he didn't seem to have a clue what he was talking about. On the latter claim - get real Pete.

10 comments:

Daniel wrote: "Recently Pete Boettke promoted Hazlitt as a public intellectual and mocked the idea that Krugman was."

I don't think that's an accurate characterization of what Boettke wrote, and so your "On the latter claim - get real Pete." seems to be directed at a straw man. What Boettke wrote is:

"I disagree with many things Paul Krugman writes, but I mostly object to his intellectual attitude as reflected in essays such as "Knaves, Fools, and me" --- perhaps the single most damning piece of evidence in the case against Krugman as a serious intellectual suffering from confirmation bias and shortsightedness in political economy. [...] Not only is civility possible between intellectual opponents, but so is gracious recogition of the insights and talents that your opponents possess."

This line: "perhaps the single most damning piece of evidence in the case against Krugman as a serious intellectual suffering from confirmation bias and shortsightedness in political economy"

Implies pretty clearly to me that he thinks there are several damning pieces of evidence in the case against Krugman as a serious intellectual suffering from confirmation bias and shortsightedness in political economy. Given that I can't possibly see how I was mischaracterizing him. If I am it's not intentional and I think his post was extremely unclear, but of course I'd think that's great if I'm not reading him right. Given what he's said about Krugman's Nobel, about Keynesianism in the Great Recession in general, and lots of odd things he's said about Krugman you can see how people would think this interpretation (which is the natural one anyway) is that much more natural.

Daniel wrote: "This line: "perhaps the single most damning piece of evidence in the case against Krugman as a serious intellectual suffering from confirmation bias and shortsightedness in political economy"

Implies pretty clearly to me that he thinks there are several damning pieces of evidence in the case against Krugman as a serious intellectual suffering from confirmation bias and shortsightedness in political economy."

Yes. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. I mean, how is what you write here evidence for your claim that Boettke was mocking the idea that Paul Krugman was a public intellectual? The same goes for the rest of what you wrote in your reply.

Boettke thinks Krugman suffers from confirmation bias and shortsightedness and that Krugman is unnecessarily mean-spirited in how he treats some of the people he disagrees with, and so one can very reasonably infer that Boettke thinks Krugman is a intellectually and/or morally compromised public intellectual, or that his influence as a public intellectual is negative, or something like that, but not that Boettke thinks Krugman is not a public intellectual.

Wait, so is this a misunderstanding? Did you just accidentally forget an adjective like 'good' in front of 'public' in the sentence 'Recently Pete Boettke promoted Hazlitt as a [good] public intellectual and mocked the idea that Krugman was'?

Daniel, I try to read your blog as fairly as possible. Koen seems to be right here. Your last paragraph (and esp. the last part: "On the latter claim - get real Pete") clearly implies that Pete is mocking the idea that Krugman is a public intellectual. I certainly read it that way until Koen refreshed my memory.

If Boettke wasn't challenging Krugman's role as a public intellectual then that was an extremely confusing post and Boettke's whole history of treatment of Krugman makes it that much more confusing. Take this on the Nobel award: "But today I would say is a sad day for economics, not a day to be celebrated. Mises supposedly said during his dying days that he hoped for another Hayek, as I am picking up my jaw from the floor I am hoping for another Samuelson or Arrow to get the award rather the hackonomics that was just honored."

If he turns around and said he thinks he's an important public intellectual I am more than happy to take all this back and admit I was confused. But there's no way in hell I'm going to concede the point. As far as I can tell Boettke thinks very, very little of Krugman and that is an absurd position for him to take.

I think that Paul Krugman is being a bit harsh on Milton Friedman's role in the intellectual history of political economy, but I do see where he is coming from. I do agree with Paul Krugman that it is depressing to see people become so knee-jerkedly opposed to any sort of government action in the economy that even Milton Friedman has been regarded as too "interventionist".

As for Michal Kalecki's piece...that piece by him does indeed sound reminiscent (sp?) of the analysis of the Public Choice School. However, I would also be careful about his analysis. Although one should not make arguments against the man, when it becomes clear that somebody's analysis - though it may be based on a kernel of truth - is overly influenced by disposition that may not necessarily apply to the situation at hand (i.e., being overly-cynical), then you should call them out on that.

As for Paul Krugman on Martin Luther King, Jr., and Peter Boettke on Henry Hazlitt...I have nothing more to say than I agree with you on that, Daniel Kuehn.

Daniel wrote: "If Boettke wasn't challenging Krugman's role as a public intellectual then that was an extremely confusing post and Boettke's whole history of treatment of Krugman makes it that much more confusing."Yeah, I'm not sure what part you're not getting. Boettke was not challenging the claim that Krugman is a (serious/important) public intellectual (it would be exceedingly odd for anyone to doubt this claim (though Krugman himself has been known to downplay his influence as a public intellectual!), he's only saying that *the way that Krugman performs in his role as a public intellectual* is not so good (more specifically, he's saying that Krugman is biased, short-sighted, uncivil and ungenerous (to some of his intellectual opponents)).

You obviously agree that Boettke thinks that Krugman is biased, short-sighted, uncivil and ungenerous, and you obviously disagree that Boettke is correct on this.

Your last 3 sentences provide an admirably concise and clear summary of your position and the confusion that is at the center of it:

"[1]If he turns around and said he thinks he's an important public intellectual I am more than happy to take all this back and admit I was confused."Okay, so I hope that it has become clear that Boettke thinks that Krugman indeed is an important public intellectual (and that this would not be a change in his position) and so you can start the taking back and admitting part ;-)(incidentally (and my main point does not at all depend on what follows) your use of 'if he turns around' sort of suggests that Boettke would be changing his position if he said this, but I am probably misunderstanding how 'if he turns around' is used in English.)

[2]"But there's no way in hell I'm going to concede the point."A sentence like that seems to suggest at first that 'the point' refers to something in the previous sentence, but when looking back at that sentence nothing in it seems to fit the bill. What you are referring to with 'the point' is Boettke's claim that Krugman is a bad (biased, short-sighted, uncivil and ungenerous) public intellectual. That point you would not concede. And that's fine as far as the discussion in these comments is concerned.I will say though that if that is what you mean by 'the point' it's kind of odd to have sentence [1] and sentence [2] follow each other. I mean, by having [2] follow [1] you can easily be taken to suggest that 'the point' refers to something you said in sentence [1], but you don't.

[3]As far as I can tell Boettke thinks very, very little of Krugman and that is an absurd position for him to take."Yes, this is what Boettke claims and what you disagree with. And we all agree that this is Boettke's claim and that you disagree with it.